Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $9.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Leonardo on the Human Body
    Leonardo on the Human Body
    Leonardo on the Human Body
    Ebook915 pages7 hours

    Leonardo on the Human Body

    By Leonardo da Vinci

    4/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    "It is a miracle that any one man should have observed, read, and written down so much in a single lifetime." — Kenneth Clark
    Painter, sculptor, musician, scientist, architect, engineer, inventor . . . perhaps no other figure so fully embodies the Western Ideal of "Renaissance man" as Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo was not content, however, to master an artistic technique or record the mechanics of a device; he was driven by an insatiable curiosity to understand why. His writings, interests, and musings are uniformly characterized by an incisive, probing, questioning mind. It was with this piercing intellectual scrutiny and detailed scientific thoroughness that Leonardo undertook the study of the human body.
    This exceptional volume reproduces more than 1,200 of Leonardo's anatomical drawings on 215 clearly printed black-and-white plates. The drawings have been arranged in chronological sequence to display Leonardo's development and growth as an anatomist. Leonardo's text, which accompanies the drawings — sometimes explanatory, sometimes autobiographical and anecdotal — has been translated into English by the distinguished medical professors Drs. O'Malley and Saunders. In their fascinating biographical introduction, the authors evaluate Leonardo's position in the historical development of anatomy and anatomical illustration. Each plate is accompanied by explanatory notes and an evaluation of the individual plate and an indication of its relationship to the work as a whole.
    While notable for their extraordinary beauty and precision, Leonardo's anatomical drawings were also far in advance of all contemporary work and scientifically the equal of anything that appeared well into the seventeenth century. Unlike most of his predecessors and contemporaries, Leonardo took nothing on trust and had faith only in his own observations and experiments. In anatomy, as in his other investigations, Leonardo's great distinction is the truly scientific nature of his methods. Herein then are over 1,200 of Leonardo's anatomical illustrations organized into eight major areas of study: Osteological System, Myological System, Comparative Anatomy, Nervous System, Respiratory System, Alimentary System, Genito-Urinary System, and Embryology.
    Artists, illustrators, physicians, students, teachers, scientists, and appreciators of Leonardo's extraordinary genius will find in these 1,200 drawings the perfect union of art and science. Carefully detailed and accurate in their data, beautiful and vibrant in their technique, they remain today — nearly five centuries later — the finest anatomical drawings ever made.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDover Publications
    Release dateJul 24, 2013
    ISBN9780486319278
    Leonardo on the Human Body
    Author

    Leonardo da Vinci

    Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was an Italian painter, sculptor, architect, musician, engineer and scientist. His many works of genius include The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa.

    Read more from Leonardo Da Vinci

    Related to Leonardo on the Human Body

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Art For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Eliza Ivanova

      Jul 12, 2019

      Eliza Ivanova
      6 min read

    • Article

      Understanding Bone Structure

      Apr 12, 2022

      One of the most undervalued areas of study for new students of figure drawing lies in the bones; it is not uncommon to hear people question our need to have knowledge of them at all. However, the bones are the structural core. While they do not alway

      3 min read

    • Article

      Which Books Do Our Pros Recommend?

      Aug 6, 2021

      Force: Dynamic Life Drawing by Michael D. Mattesi. The reason I’d recommend this book is because it teaches how to create drawings that evoke emotion – how to capture the soul of your subject matter rather than just copying down what you see in front

      1 min read

    • Article

      5. The Body

      Apr 17, 2020

      5. The Body
      4 min read

    • Article

      Karl Kopinski

      Jul 12, 2019

      Karl Kopinski has an ongoing series of paintings about professional cycling. These paintings don’t show the roads on which teams race, routes leading up and down the rolling green hills of Tuscany, through the packed streets of Paris. They don’t show

      6 min read

    • Article

      CAST Drawing

      Oct 30, 2020

      CAST Drawing
      4 min read

    • Article

      Paint LIKE SARGENT

      Nov 1, 2019

      Paint LIKE SARGENT
      5 min read

    • Article

      The Loomis METHOD

      Oct 29, 2021

      The Loomis METHOD
      4 min read

    • Article

      1. Bone Structure

      Dec 27, 2019

      1. Bone Structure
      3 min read

    • Article

      13. Master Hands

      Nov 27, 2020

      13. Master Hands
      1 min read

    • Article

      Drawing Animals

      Aug 16, 2017

      Drawing Animals
      5 min read

    • Article

      A Life Devoted to Art

      Feb 13, 2020

      A Life Devoted to Art
      6 min read

    • Article

      Clip Studio Paint NEW RENDERING TECHNIQUES

      Feb 21, 2020

      My love for illustration began when I attended a local art college. It was here that I had the chance to study and explore different artists and their painting styles. At that time I loved Japanese comics and animation (and I still do to this day). A

      5 min read

    • Article

      My Italian Studio

      Oct 12, 2023

      On June 25th 2000 we arrived, jet lagged and with a couple of suitcases, to start our life in Italy. Our family of four, Marius and our two boys, Julius 10 and Fabian six, were welcomed immediately. We had bought a house in the centre of Citerna, a t

      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Leonardo on the Human Body

    4/5

    15 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Leonardo on the Human Body - Leonardo da Vinci

      introduction

      anatomical illustration before Leonardo

      If it may be said that the fourteenth century ushered in a new period of civilization, for convenience called the Renaissance, then it may be remarked that anatomy in that new age was long to remain mediaeval, at least insofar as it was reflected in medical illustration. Prior to this new era the teaching of anatomy had been based largely upon the dissection of animals, but in the thirteenth century even this limited procedure of direct observation was largely superseded by the Arabic influence which led to efforts to teach anatomy wholly from textbooks. Although the Arabic influence was to be cast off eventually, yet anatomy was still to suffer from strictures arisen from a misunderstanding of the position of the church. In 1300 Pope Boniface VIII had issued a bull, De sepulturis, which proclaimed excommunication for any who should follow the practice of boiling the bones of persons, in particular crusaders, in order to make their storage and transport easier for burial at home. This bull was frequently and incorrectly interpreted, even by anatomists, as a prohibition against dissection. Partly perhaps as an outgrowth of this situation and partly as the result of too literal religious views there was also considerable popular opposition to dissection of the human body for fear of the consequences upon resurrection.

      Despite such obstacles there was a limited knowledge of anatomy, partly traditional, partly the outgrowth of surgical experience and very likely from time to time the reflection of surreptitious dissection. The first open mention of dissection was of one performed in Italy in 1286. However, it was nothing more than a post-mortem examination of a victim of a pestilence then raging and was for the purpose of attempting to find the cause of death. There is a more formal account of an examination performed in 1302 in Bologna to ascertain the cause of a death which had occurred under suspicious circumstances. The account does not suggest the procedure as unusual and presumably post-mortem examinations as legal devices had previously been performed. Yet such examinations would yield little anatomical information since normally the procedure required little more than the opening of the thorax and an examination of the contents.

      With the appearance in 1316 of the Anothomia of Mundinus (c.1270-1326) we enter upon what might be called the non-mediaeval rather than the modern period of anatomy. Moreover, it should be emphasized that in this period anatomy was considered to include both a knowledge of the structure and of the function of the human body. Mundinus’ book is the first devoted entirely to this subject, and although the Arabic tradition is still strong, yet it is obvious that Mundinus incorporated the results of dissection and, indeed, performed the dissections himself. From the time of Mundinus the medical school at Bologna was to become the centre of such anatomical knowledge as there was. There dissection was officially recognized by university statute in 1405, to be followed in 1429 by a similar recognition at Padua. However, permission did not necessarily imply opportunity, and cadavers were only very infrequently at the disposal of the schools. Furthermore, the successors of Mundinus for the next century and a half did little more than echo and confirm what he had already propounded, and this is not to be wondered at in view of what passed for dissection.

      This limited interest in anatomy is supported by text and illustration, although the situation is more precisely defined in the former since it was not until the sixteenth century, and even then far from unanimously, that physicians came to look upon correct anatomical drawings as having any pedagogical value. Indeed, many physicians up to this time decried the employment of anything which might tend to distract the reader from the text. Under such conditions, it is not astonishing to find that illustration displayed no development. Such as there was remained traditional, often having no immediate relationship to the text and frequently merely a kind of symbolic decoration. Thus to judge the anatomical knowledge at any given time from such illustrative material would be wholly misleading.

      The major tradition insofar as anatomical illustration is concerned was one which is said to go as far back as the time of Aristotle who in his De generatione animalium, I:7, speaks of the teaching of anatomy through paradigms, schemata and diagrams. Thereafter the Alexandrian anatomists such as Herophilus and Erasistratus are said to have continued the employment of such sorts of illustrative materials in their teaching.

      While it is impossible to say precisely what these illustrative materials were, nevertheless there is fairly general support for the belief that what Karl Sudhoff called the Five Picture Series represents a portion of them. These five views, representative of the bones, muscles, nerves, veins and arteries, and displayed in crude human figures, invariably in a semi-squatting position, have been found not only in Europe and Asia, but also in the western hemisphere. The similarity of pose—with full anterior view of body and face, the latter completely rigid—suggests a longstanding tradition which Sudhoff considers as indicating characteristics of early Egyptian and Greek sculpture and therefore supporting a Hellenic and Alexandrian origin.

      Through successive centuries the tradition appears to have remained constant with the exception that occasionally a sixth figure was added, either a view of the pregnant woman or depiction of the generative organs, either male or female. However, the anatomical content of the series passed on to successive centuries without change despite the fact that anatomical texts indicate gradually increasing knowledge. It is not astonishing therefore that as anatomical knowledge increased, notably at the end of the fifteenth century, this series of five or six crude figures is less and less associated with the physician and becomes a device to assist the unlearned barber-surgeon in his activities, especially that of bloodletting. Nevertheless the pedagogical aspect of the tradition associated with the figures continued in regular medical circles. Thus the Tabulae anatomicae of Vesalius (1538) are the result of this influence although the new pose of the figures, the superior draughtsmanship and far more nearly correct anatomy represent a novelty.

      If therefore the traditional anatomical drawings became less and less a true representation of the state of anatomical knowledge with the passing centuries, there is another sort of anatomical drawing which does more truly represent the situation. This is the miniature which is to be found on manuscripts from about the fourteenth century, depicting dissection scenes. While it is true that the extent of knowledge is not indicated in these miniatures, yet the dissection scenes are revealing. Human dissection, it is apparent, was once again being practiced, and in the course of time such dissections would inevitably lead to an increase of anatomical knowledge. It is true that the dissection was still an occasional affair and indicated as such by its ceremonious nature. It is also true that the actual dissection was delegated to assistants, and the physician-teacher lectured from a book with little profit to himself or to his students. Yet inevitably and gradually, knowledge would be acquired. From our advantage of hindsight it may be said that the appearance of the dissection miniature meant the eventual banishment of the traditional anatomical series from academic medical circles.

      While it can be said with considerable correctness that from the fourteenth century on the physician looked with more and more scorn upon anatomical illustration—possibly in some degree because of its useless character so long as it remained traditional—about this time the professional artist was becoming interested in the study of anatomy as an auxiliary to a more naturalistic portrayal of the human body. In recent years (1916, 1919) a study of this was made by E. C. Streeter, and while certain of his conclusions are tenable, unfortunately too great enthusiasm for his thesis and certain incorrect interpretations have distorted the picture. These errors were then compounded and strengthened by the affirmation and support of F. H. Garrison (1919, 1926). However, a thorough study of the anatomico-artistic career of Leonardo da Vinci suggests certain revisions in what might be called the Streeter-Garrison thesis.

      According to Streeter, Florentine painters were accustomed to purchase their pigments in the apothecary shops, and as a result tended to become acquainted with physicians who were also patrons of such establishments. The result of such contact produced a certain fellow-feeling which led the artists to apply for admission into the guild of physicians and apothecaries (1303). This condition was to remain for more than two and a half centuries and consequently led to a considerable exchange of interest and information. Thus Masaccio was to join the guild as an apothecary (1421) but decided to continue his membership as a painter (1423). In addition to such changes of interest there developed a number of close friendships between physicians and painters such as that of Giotto with Dino del Garbo and Luca della Robbia with Benivieni. The presumption here is that along with the artist’s desire for greater naturalism in painting he was further fostered in this direction through his association with physicians. Here it might be interposed that such association, like a double-edged sword ought to cut both ways, yet we have no evidence that the physician was influenced to an appreciation of the role which art might play in medicine.

      However this may be, it appears that from the time of Giotto onwards the movement was toward greater anatomical realism, and it was Giotto’s assistant, Stefano, who was called the ape of nature because of the skill he acquired in the depiction of the superficial veins in the human body. Indeed, the story is that barber-surgeons studied his pictures before opening a vein. This story, needless to say, has a certain apocryphal ring to it, since in view of the prevalence of bloodletting the barber-surgeons would have had through experience even more knowledge of the position of the superficial veins than Stefano, while the appearance of the veins on the surface of the body would make it unnecessary, if study were required, to resort to paintings. Finally, it is rather difficult to imagine the barber-surgeons of that era, in view of their general character, taking such pains over anything so common as a matter of venesection.

      Through the close contact of artist with painter it is related that in their pursuit of naturalism the artists perceived the advantage to them of anatomical study through dissection, which had been authorized at the Florentine university in 1387, and began to attend and then to assist their guild colleagues, the physicians, at such dissections. Thereafter these artists began to dissect for themselves, the first who undertook such scientific study of anatomy being apparently Donatello (1386-1466), who has left us a bronze tablet The anatomy of the miser’s heart in commemoration of his interest. The weakness in this otherwise fascinating thesis is the fact that dissection as it was performed provided very little anatomical knowledge, certainly no more than was already available in Mundinus, while such studies, particularly that displayed by Donatello, would be of little or no value to the artist who naturally would be interested in the more superficial structures and certainly for his purpose not in the contents of the thorax.

      Further consideration of the artist as anatomist rests upon the anatomical correctness with which he has painted the human body and the various accounts given by Vasari, an authority who, be it noted, is frequently unreliable. Of Antonio Pollaiuolo (1432-1498) Vasari has written: He understood the nude in a more modern way than the masters before him; he removed the skin from many corpses to see the anatomy underneath. A recent judgment of Pollaiuolo’s Battle of the Ten Nudes, in which perhaps his anatomical knowledge is best portrayed, declares him the great anatomical student among artists before Leonardo. Without criticism of the latter judgment, it should be noted that Vasari’s statement suggests both truth and error. It is quite within reason that the artist removed the skin … to see the anatomy underneath, that is, his interest was myological, while the dissection as performed in the medical school would have no particular value for him. To call an artist whose interest is only in such structures as would be reflected in the surface features of the body a student of anatomy is to distort the meaning of the term, especially in the Renaissance sense of anatomy and physiology. Finally, Vasari’s reference to the many corpses which Pollaiuolo flayed suggests a legendary growth, in view of the great difficulties that confronted the medical schools in obtaining cadavers, and the relatively few specimens that Leonardo obtained a century later.

      In the case of del Verrocchio (1435-1488) it is said that as a student under Pollaiuolo and Donatello he displayed a like scientific interest. Moreover, as the teacher of Leonardo it has been assumed that he initiated his great student into anatomical studies; hence he himself must be a student of anatomy. While del Verrocchio did not paint many nudes, yet, as it has been stated, in his drawings there is no question of his anatomical studies, as for example, his representations of the surface muscles in bodies from which the skin has been removed. Again Vasari has been cited, regarding del Verrocchio’s restoration of the limbs of an ancient torso of the flayed Marsyas:

      [Lorenzo de’Medici] gave it to Andrea to restore and finish, and that artist made the legs, sides and arms that were lacking…. This antique torso of a flayed Marsyas was made with such skill and judgment that some slender white veins in the red stone came out, through skilful carving, in the proper places, appearing like small sinews, such as are seen in natural figures when flayed, and this rendered the work most life-like.

      Here once again it must be noted that del Verrocchio has displayed not much more knowledge than might have been gained from a flayed cadaver and from close observation of a very lean, but living subject. And in view of the fact that Leonardo recommends precisely this latter sort of study for knowledge of superficial structures, it is entirely possible that much of the anatomy of artists of the time was gained in this fashion.

      No doubt the artists attended the public dissections at the medical schools, as indeed did also a great many of the townsfolk both lay and ecclesiastical. It is in regard to such dissections that Vesalius has remarked in his China Root Letter (1546): As for those painters and sculptors who flocked around me at my dissections, I never allowed myself to get worked up about them to the point of feeling that I was less favored than these men, for all their superior airs. But to use this remark as indicating a high degree of anatomical knowledge among artists is to misunderstand the case. It is true that Vesalius has been the victim even in the twentieth century of certain hasty and ignorant conclusions as to his true position in the history of anatomy, but to men of his own day who were competent to judge, such as Cardan, Columbus and Fallopius, there was no question as to his primacy. If it is true that a little knowledge maketh a fool, then such would be Vesalius’ opinion of at least some of the artist spectators, well-acquainted with certain of the superficial structures, and probably therefore authoritative in their attitude about such things, wholly ignorant of everything else and finally and most important, completely unsystematic in whatever anatomical knowledge they possessed. Even Leonardo, who eventually passed from the superficial structures to a study of the deeper parts, never overcame this defect.

      What then is the precise position of the artist in relationship to the development of anatomical knowledge. A tempered judgment suggests first that he was interested in anatomy only insofar as it would assist him in a more naturalistic portrayal of the human body. For this purpose he studied living subjects, preferably lean ones in whom muscle contours, tendons and certain superficial blood vessels could be identified. Then possibly certain artists went a step further by flaying cadavers, when obtainable, for this even better mode of studying the surface muscles. Yet cadavers for such purpose were seldom obtainable, and more frequently such study was piecemeal. Thus Luca Signorelli (1442-1524) is said to have visited burial grounds in search of parts of bodies. The purpose of all such studies was not anatomy per se, and the result was that the artist never achieved a systematic knowledge of the subject and made no contribution to the advance of anatomy. The one exception to much of this was Leonardo, who, always primarily the artist, yet came to recognize anatomy as more than merely a subject auxiliary to art. It was this attitude which led him to pursue it beyond the point of need for his major interest as an artist. Nevertheless Leonardo was never an anatomist since he, too, unsystematically followed only those aspects which interested him. However, he represents the closest approach of art to anatomy.

      Meanwhile it has become fashionable to suggest that artists were the true anatomists and had better knowledge of the subject from approximately the period of Giotto to Leonardo. This belief arises from a study of their paintings and certain statements made by Vasari together with a liberal dash of enthusiasm. It also bases itself upon the traditional medical illustration such as the Five Picture Series mentioned above. Rather conveniently it overlooks the fact that the traditional illustrations were retained by medical writers purely as traditional and that frequently there was no relationship with the text, and, moreover, that among very many of the medical writers any illustration was frowned upon. Among artists the important thing was detail; among anatomists it was system. The artist from observation could draw superficial muscles correctly; the anatomist might be well acquainted with them and far more capable of relating them to the rest of the human structure, but he was incapable of good draughtsmanship. The drawing can be observed readily, the textual description is in difficult Latin. Leonardo at times unwittingly emphasizes the distinction when he fails in his efforts to draw from memory some structure which he can draw superbly from direct observation. If we follow the anatomist from the superficial to the deeper structures it is possible to point out many errors, but here it is impossible to make any comparison with the artists since with the exception of Leonardo who, be it remembered, thought of anatomy as a separate discipline, none of them pursued the study this far. Indeed, Leonardo represents the greatest heights reached by the artist-anatomist. Thereafter and gradually the anatomist asserts superiority in this combination of disciplines. Gradually the pedagogical value of correct illustration was recognized although only after a struggle with such conservative forces as Jacobus Sylvius who even as late as the mid-sixteenth century frowned upon the contamination of text by illustration. He was, however, fighting a losing battle. With the publication of Vesalius’ Tabulae anatomicae in 1538 and the Fabrica in 1543, the employment of anatomically correct and naturalistic illustrations produced under the direction of the anatomist and carefully related to the text became an important adjunct to the further advance of anatomical studies. Thus the final integration was achieved of these two arts which had first become acquainted in the apothecary’s shop in fourteenth century Florence.

      life of Leonardo da Vinci

      The little Tuscan hill-town of Vinci, lying between Florence and Empoli, saw the birth of Leonardo, her most famous son, on 15 April 1452. The child was the son of a young notary, Ser Piero and a young girl named Caterina of the nearby village of Anchiano, and so of illegitimate birth. Nonetheless he appears to have been heartily accepted into his father’s family, and on Sunday, the day after his birth, young Leonardo was baptized in the church of Santa Croce in the presence of the family and some ten witnesses.

      Ser Piero, already a successful businessman, married a woman of his own station in the year of Leonardo’s birth, and thereafter in the course of his life contracted three other marriages which eventually produced a number of offspring, although the first of these was not to appear until Leonardo was twenty-four years old. Leonardo grew up in what appears to have been a normal family circle in which his stepmother treated him as her own son. We know little of his early youth except for the fact that from infancy he seems to have lived outdoors, and he himself was later to write of the incident in which a kite swooped down upon his cradle, brushing its tail against his mouth. Vasari records the great physical strength of Leonardo, while other contemporaries note his fine physique and generally handsome appearance. Meanwhile Leonardo’s mother, shortly after the birth of her son, married a man of rather lower social position, one Accattabriga di Piero del Vacco. Some forty years later in Milan Leonardo employed a housekeeper named Caterina who died, presumably in his service, and whose funeral expenses he paid. A story, not completely improbable, makes this woman his mother.

      Ser Piero, the father, of shrewd, hardheaded and logical disposition, appears to have passed on some of these traits to his son, although the intuitive and poetic qualities of the later great artist were an inheritance from elsewhere, possibly from his mother. At any rate, father and son were apparently attached to one another, although it may have been by respect rather than by love. Certainly the introspective, artistic nature of the son may at times have been repulsed by the calculating, commercial characteristics of the father, not to mention the father’s much stronger attraction to women, his numerous marriages and eventual progeny with all their resultant problems. Leonardo’s view is expressed in his reply to his brother Francesco’s announcement of the birth of a son: You are pleased at having created an enemy intent on his liberty, which he will not have before your death. Sigmund Freud, who wrote a brief study of Leonardo in which he attempts to prove a latent homosexuality, appears to have overlooked this remark of which he might have made much.

      Leonardo remained in Vinci until somewhere between his thirteenth and seventeenth year. His education there was of the simplest sort. He learned some elementary arithmetic and is reported to have displayed an early bent toward mathematics and engineering. He was never educated in the classical languages although around the age of forty he acquired some facility in Latin through his own efforts.

      While still in Vinci Leonardo had become intensely interested in drawing, and unlike the usual town-bred artist he had the opportunity to observe nature closely. Indeed, the whole foundation of his lifelong interest in the various phenomena of nature seems to have been laid at this time. The fact that he had few youthful companions appears to have been no cause for complaint, and later he was to write: If you are alone you belong entirely to yourself, a phrase which might almost be termed the Leonardine creed of independence.

      A document of the year 1469 informs us that Ser Piero was by then official notary to the Signoria of Florence. He had already acquired a large private clientele and was sufficiently well-to-do so that he possessed an apartment in the Palazzo del Podestà, rented a house in the Via delle Prestanze (now the Via de’Gondi) and maintained a villa in his native place. It is thus difficult to say precisely when Leonardo may be said to have taken residence in Florence since no doubt frequent visits were paid to Vinci. At some time not definitely ascertainable between 1464-70 the father displayed some of his son’s drawings to the famous sculptor and artist del Verrocchio with the result that young Leonardo was accepted as a pupil by that Florentine master, and in 1472 he was enrolled in the Compagnia di San Luca, the guild of Florentine artists.

      Presumably del Verrocchio thought highly of his gifted pupil since he retained him as a collaborator for five years after Leonardo’s admittance to the painter’s guild, and in 1476 he is mentioned as living with del Verrocchio. Probably no better choice of teacher could have been made than this artist whose interests were wide enough to comprise all forms of the arts, music, mathematics and engineering, subjects in which Leonardo would in time surpass his teacher, but also subjects in which he must first gain an elementary discipline. However, it must be noted that the many interests of del Verrocchio possibly influenced his student to a similar multitude of interests without the necessary mental discipline to follow most of them through to ultimate completion. Del Verrocchio’s eventual recognition of the superior ability of his student appears to have led not to jealousy and enmity but rather to collaboration and a further fostering of the great gifts of the student. Leonardo was apparently also aware of this situation as his later remark may indicate: He is a poor disciple who does not excel his master.

      It was during this period (1476) that Leonardo, together with several other young men of Florence, was indicted on a charge of sodomy. Two appearances in court did not lead to acquittal but rather to an inconclusive dismissal of the case on the ground that it was not proved, and there appears to be some basis for the truth of the original indictment according to some authorities.

      It may have been in del Verrocchio’s studio, or under the guidance of his master, that Leonardo received his introduction to anatomical studies, and possibly, although in view of his earliest individual efforts at anatomical illustration not likely, that he may have assisted at dissections. However, such anatomical studies were primarily for the purpose of better depiction of the human body and presumably went no further than a study of the superficial structures. Thus his acquaintance with anatomy at this time would be that of the artist, and it must be remembered that his contemporary fame was gained primarily as an artist. Leonardo was to differ from his contemporaries not because he was the uomo universale but because of the distances to which he pursued his many interests and thereby the contributions which he was sometimes able to make. While it is doubtful that Leonardo ever thought of himself as an anatomist, and certainly he never acquired a discipline in that study, yet it is noteworthy that he pushed his investigations far beyond the point of artistic usefulness; and it is possibly correct that Leonardo thought of these studies as a separate discipline rather than auxiliary to art.

      The question naturally arises as to where artists obtained bodies and where they carried out their dissections of them. In the case of Leonardo, either with his master or alone, it must be noted that the medical school had been moved from Florence to Pisa shortly after Leonardo took up residence in the former city. Thus attendance at demonstrations by the medical faculty was out of the question except for a short period of time. It is true that a contemporary but anonymous biographer remarks that he made many anatomies, which he performed in the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova in Florence. This remark, however, refers to a later residence in Florence. Certainly we possess no anatomical drawings from this early period, while the earliest we do possess, c.1487, do not indicate any considerable experience of dissection. However, Leonardo’s remark (182) those hanged of whom I have seen an anatomy might well refer to the anatomizing of Bandino Baroncelli, hanged after the failure of the Pazzi revolt in 1477. In short, Leonardo’s participation in dissections at this time seems to have been that of a spectator at most.

      In later years Leonardo was to write: The Medici created and destroyed me. While the latter part of this statement may refer to the difficulties that Leonardo experienced later in Rome during the pontificate of Leo X, the prior portion very likely refers to whatever encouragement and assistance may have been given to him by Lorenzo de’Medici in Florence. The contemporary biographer known only as the Anonimo Gaddiano wrote that Leonardo attracted the attention of Lorenzo who arranged for him to work in the garden of the Medici in the Piazza di San Marco, and it may have been through the influence of Lorenzo that he was chosen to paint the altarpiece of the chapel of the Signoria in 1478. In the same year Leonardo also met for the first time his future patron Lodovico Sforza, who had come to Florence to offer his sympathies as a result of the assassination of Lorenzo’s brother Giuliano. In December 1479 Leonardo made a drawing of the body of one of the assassins, Bandino Baroncelli, hanging from a window of the Palazzo della Signoria.

      first Milanese period

      It appears possible that Lorenzo also played some part in Leonardo’s transference to Milan. A contemporary account informs us that Lorenzo dispatched Leonardo to Milan with a silver lute as a gift for Lodovico Sforza. However, there also exists a long letter written by Leonardo to that Milanese tyrant in which he recounts his abilities as a military engineer, mathematician, architect and sculptor as recommendation for employment. Possibly there is some truth in both accounts. Leonardo may have felt that Florence was too full of established artists, and there he might remain the disciple without the opportunity to develop his own independent views. Hence he may have been attracted to Milan artistically hungry and as yet unsatisfied, while Lorenzo de’Medici, ever ready to assist young and capable artists, and widely known as a connoisseur, could give very effective aid by his recommendations. At any rate, Leonardo transferred his activities to Milan, although the date of this removal has been variously placed from the end of 1481 to 1483.

      To understand either the attraction or the invitation of Milan for Leonardo it is necessary to give brief consideration to the political situation in that Lombard duchy. With the assassination of the Duke Galeazzo Maria, the succession fell to his son Gian Galeazzo, a child of seven, and therefore under the nominal regency of his mother Bona of Savoy, Commines’ dame de petit sens. Actually the control rested with a former ducal secretary, Cecco Simonetta. The division of Italy into numerous small states, and at the time disturbed by papal and Neapolitan ambitions, led to the upsetting of the political balance which since 1454 had maintained a relative condition of peace through political equilibrium. It was under these conditions that Lodovico Sforza, fourth son of the former Duke Francesco and uncle of Gian Galeazzo, succeeded in overthrowing the regency and establishing himself as the power in Milan, first in the guise of protector of the young duke, but from 1481 openly as the actual if not legal ruler. This position, thanks to the physical and mental weakness of Gian Galeazzo, he continued to retain though the duke survived until 1494.

      From this situation arose several results which go to explain Leonardo’s sojourn in Milan, at least in part. The political alignments resulting in some degree from Lodovico’s coup d’etat saw agreement reached between Naples, Milan and Florence to which the lesser state of Ferrara adhered. Aggressively opposed to this were Venice and the Papacy, with the result that war broke out in 1482 over the control of Ferrara as well as certain lesser territories, and although the Papacy withdrew in the following year, peace with Venice did not occur until 1484. Thereafter feudal risings in Naples, fostered by the Papacy, led to uneasiness over possible French intervention on the basis of the old Angevin claim to that territory. The solution of this problem in 1486 merely ushered in a period of coolness between Milan and Florence over the eventual possession of the important fortress of Sarzana on the Ligurian coast which Florence finally obtained in the following year, while the control established over Genoa by Milan in 1490 removed the buffer between the latter state and Florence and did nothing to ease the tension. Finally, brooding over all was the constant and ever growing danger of French intervention to assert the claim to Naples and a lesser claim to Milan, which was brought into stronger relief as a result of Lodovico’s forceful but illegal control of the duchy.

      Under these conditions it is obvious that anyone who could proffer military assistance would be welcome to the Milanese government, and it is therefore likely that Leonardo as a military engineer would be welcome. In the second place, the fact that Lodovico had usurped the dukedom was nothing novel. Rather it was the common-place representation of the Italian tyrant, a manifestation of Machiavelli’s later Prince. However, the successful tyrant must be endowed with the quality of virtù, demonstrated among other ways by concern for the general welfare of his state and a certain brilliance at his court or immediate milieu. These qualities Lodovico possessed not only by design but by personal inclination as well, and the resultant ducal patronage was able to give ample scope to the many talents of Leonardo. It is possibly a fact of some significance that in his letter to Lodovico, in which Leonardo recounts his available talents, he places first and in greatest detail his abilities as a military and then a civil engineer, and it is only in the closing paragraphs that he refers to himself as an artist. Even here the emphasis is upon his capability to execute the equestrian statue which it was known that Lodovico desired to commemorate the name of his illustrious forebear and ancestral tyrant, Francesco Sforza.

      In this letter to the Sforza, Leonardo had described himself, among other things, as an architect, and in due course he was called upon for the exercise of this talent in conjunction with the erection of the cathedral in Pavia, about 1490. Despite the fact that Leonardo had been dispatched to Pavia to give advice on the construction of the building, he became, characteristically it may be said, so absorbed in the laws of geometry and mechanics which governed the construction that his visit produced no tangible results, and eventually the work progressed only under the supervision of a lesser but more practical architect. Similarly, about the same time he was consulted on the construction of the dome or tiburio for the Milan cathedral with like intangible results. Still further time and effort appears to have been consumed in decoration of the interior of the Castello di Porta Giovia. Originally a citadel destroyed in the revolution of 1447, it had been rebuilt by the Sforzi as a ducal residence, and was elaborately furbished by Lodovico Sforza after his marriage to Beatrice d’Este in 1491. Between about 1492-98, Leonardo appears to have been employed both on the problem of fortification and of interior decoration. Moreover, as a military engineer a certain amount of time had to be spent in visiting border fortifications. In 1496 when Lodovico with a large retinue travelled through the Valtellina to Mals in order to pay a visit to the Emperor Maximilian and the empress, Lodovico’s niece, it is probable that Leonardo was one of the party, while certain of his drawings of Alpine scenes are identifiable as representing points in the area. Still further time-consuming ducal employment required Leonardo’s services as costume and scene designer for various ducal revels and celebrations.

      Presumably, however, the most exhausting efforts were those directed toward the completion of the equestrian statue of Francesco Sforza. The idea of such a statue appears to have originated with Galeazzo Maria, but hitherto all attempts to execute the work had failed. Now Lodovico was determined that something extraordinary should be produced, but despite the confidence of his assertion in his letter to the ruler of Milan it seemed doubtful that even Leonardo would be able to cope with the task which he had set for himself. The earliest sketches for the proposed bronze horse are attributed to the period c.1486-90, and represent a prancing horse, a design which was technically beyond Leonardo’s ability to execute, and apparently led him for a time to abandon the task. Thereafter from 1490-93, there are a number of further sketches, and in the autumn of this last year a full-scale model was completed and placed under a triumphal arch in the Piazza of the Castello on the occasion of the marriage of Bianca Maria Sforza to the Emperor Maximilian. However, the model was never to be cast in the permanence of bronze. The appearance of the French in Italy strained Milanese resources to the utmost. I will not speak of the horse, wrote Leonardo to the duke, for I know the times. Furthermore, such bronze as had been collected for the casting was sent by Lodovico to his brother-in-law Ercole d’Este who had need of it for the manufacture of cannon. As late as 1501 the model was in existence, although it must have suffered considerably from the elements, and after that time it is reputed to have been destroyed by soldiers of the French army of Louis XII.

      So much for Leonardo’s time-consuming labors on behalf of the state. In addition, private enterprises in the field of art ate further into his time and energies, most notably the painting of the Last Supper in the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, begun in the latter part of 1496.

      When one comes to consider Leonardo’s activities in anatomy during this first Milanese period, it is clear that he could not have had any very considerable amount of time to devote consistently to them, while a considerable number of such anatomical studies as he made must have been devoted to the dissection of the horse in preparation for the ill-fated statue. Moreover, while the bulk of the drawings on the anatomy of the horse are, as one might expect, of the surface anatomy, and drawn by Leonardo in the guise of the artist, there are nevertheless some detailed ones illustrating the muscles of the horse’s thigh compared to the corresponding muscles of man, suggesting that he was carrying on his studies of the anatomy of the horse and of man simultaneously. Yet the amount of work which he accomplished in human anatomy, if we may at all judge by the surviving drawings, was relatively small. This, perhaps, is what ought to be expected. It must be remembered that Leonardo had arrived in Milan as a product of Florentine culture, a culture much influenced by the doctrines of Plato. As a result the Florentine was concerned for beauty as much as for truth, and in the case of the latter goal he was more prone to seek the absolute truths of mathematical and physical law than the more relative position of the biological sciences. It is perhaps no accident that the anatomical works of this period such as those of Benedetti and Ketham appeared in the north. It may be said that Milan, far more congenial to the thought of Aristotle, was to be of great influence upon the new attitude which Leonardo developed toward anatomy. Only gradually did he cease to be the artist concerned with anatomy solely as an auxiliary to the naturalistic portrayal in art and become a seeker of biological truth for itself. Illustration of this is to be found in a comparison of his earlier and later plates, as for example, the Platonic interpretation of the vena cava (116) as opposed to the later Aristotelian view expressed in 119.

      There is, moreover, the question of the conditions under which Leonardo carried on his anatomical studies in Milan and how much dissection material was available to him. To neither of these matters can a precise answer be given. Possibly, as it has been suggested, he was afforded opportunities in the Ospedale Maggiore, the erection of which had begun in 1456, as well as the Collegio dei Nobili Fisici, the chief medical school of the city, although we have no evidence of this, and the evidence to the contrary, as represented in his anatomical drawings, is strong.

      The earliest anatomical drawings by Leonardo are attributed to c.1487 (33-35, 72, 151-3). On the basis of these drawings certain facts become manifest. It is apparent that his knowledge of anatomy was merely such as he had acquired by reading traditional writers such as Avicenna and Mundinus, by some animal dissection and by surface inspection of the living human. Such seems the only answer to errors which are rectified later when we know that he had human materials under observation, and to obvious and erroneous efforts to synthesize traditional information and animal structures with those of the human.

      The heterogeneous nature of the earliest plates suggests that at the beginning of his anatomical studies Leonardo had no system of procedure in mind. However, he did have some thoughts, if not answers, on the matter by 1489 as is witnessed by the statement the book entitled On the Human Figure (5) of which, however, the phraseology suggests more the attitude of the artist than of the anatomist, while a note (154) suggests that Leonardo is still thinking of anatomy as ancillary to draughtsmanship, and the final admonition on 161 suggests once again not so much anatomical study as the correct artistic portrayal of the anatomical specimen. Yet there is some greater consistency after 1489 since we have five plates of that year (3-7) dealing with different aspects of the skull as well as some suggestion of systematization in his descriptive notes. Plate 71 again suggests method in the delineation of the muscles of the leg observed from different aspects, in this case for the sake of surgeons as well as for artists. The notes also suggest subjects to be pursued later, presumably as topics for the projected book. It should, however, be recognized that they represent matters about which Leonardo was inquisitive rather than informed, and plates 125-6 indicate a similar uninformed interest in certain aspects of physiology and muscular action. Perhaps the most important thing introduced during this period is the technique of cross-sectional representation (142-3, 159-60). Insofar as anatomy demonstrated through illustration is concerned, Leonardo had already conceived his plan of representing the subject from four aspects as though the viewer were able to walk completely around it and observe it from every aspect (182). This admirable method was to be used by him throughout his career in anatomy.

      While it seems very unlikely that Leonardo had participated in any dissections in Florence, it likewise appears improbable that up to this time he had had any such opportunities in Milan. Thus far the only human material available to him appears to have been a head, probably that of a decapitated criminal (34). Two drawings of 1489 (125-6) suggest observation of the living subject, and of the drawings attributed to the following year, 154 suggests a schematic or diagrammatic projection of a reading of Galen, as does 155, while 64-5 appear to be the result of observation of the living subject. The drawings that may be attributed to the next several years, 144, 161, suggest a combination of reading in the traditional writers and dissection of the horse or cow with the results applied to man. In other works of this first Milan period (71, 116, 142-3, 159-60, 164) the conclusion which must be drawn in no way differs, that the drawings are based upon reading, some animal dissection and observation of the living subject. This is particularly apparent in 142. There are, however, two exceptional instances worthy of note. The accuracy of the drawing of the thigh and leg in 159 makes it seem likely that Leonardo did in some fashion acquire this particular human specimen, while the use of cross-section in 143 is interesting because of the novelty of the technique.

      On the basis of the existent drawings it may be said that as yet Leonardo is a tyro in the study of anatomy. He is still under the influence of his reading of Galen, Avicenna and Mundinus. There is, moreover, no indication of a systematic approach to the subject. This does not mean that Leonardo’s interest was confined solely to these subjects of which he has left record since in plate 5, dated 1489, is the phrase the book On the human figure, while 125-6 suggest a number of contemplated anatomical subjects. Yet it must also be remembered that since Leonardo was as yet barely initiated into the art of anatomy, he was certainly in no position to develop a system or method of presentation, and one must not be misled by the questions he asks—indicative at the same time of ignorance and interest—into believing that they represent a genuine plan of procedure. The truth of the matter appears to be that, if for no other reason, he was prevented from expansion of his inquiries and his knowledge by lack of dissection material. So far as we know he had access to a single human head and possibly a thigh and leg. There is no evidence or even suggestion that he had access to the Ospedale Maggiore or the Collegio dei Nobili Fisici in Milan. On the basis of the now existent drawings it appears unlikely that Leonardo had access to a cadaver during his first Milanese period. In view of his penchant for the bizarre we should certainly expect, if possible, a drawing of the human skeleton.

      Together with the lack of dissection material as a hindrance to anatomical investigation it must be recalled that Leonardo was very active in other directions and the various architectural, engineering and mathematical problems related to state activities must have consumed enormous amounts of his time. Such were the interests of the assemblage of savants gathered by Lodovico Sforza, and no doubt these general interests and problems constantly deflected Leonardo from such other interests as he may have had. Of this group of aulic savants the most significant for Leonardo was Luca Pacioli, the mathematician. Pacioli had been invited in 1496 to lecture in Milan, and during his four years’ residence lived on close terms with Leonardo. In 1497 Pacioli completed his treatise De divina proportione, although not published until 1509, for which the illustrations were drawn by Leonardo. While most of the illustrations dealt with proportion in geometric solids, one figure represents the proportions of the human body, a suggestion that Leonardo may already have become interested in the canon of the proportions of the body.

      Toward the close of 1499 Leonardo’s first residence in Milan was to come to an end as a result of the political situation. In 1492 Lodovico Sforza, none too sure of his hold upon the ducal throne and at odds with the ruling house of Naples which comprised the rival claimant to Milan, as well as with Florence, had aligned himself with Charles VIII of France. As a result of the agreement Charles was invited to invade Italy through its Milanese bastion, assert the old Angevin claim upon Naples and thereby remove the major threat to Lodovico’s throne. Only after the French had entered and traversed the length of the peninsula did the duke realize his blunder and thereafter joined with Venice, the Papacy, Spain and the Empire in the Holy League (31 March 1495) to drive out the invader. However, the evil had been precipitated and Italy opened up to the northerners. But since Italian leagues were as unstable as they were numerous it is not astonishing to find France next entering into an understanding with its recent foes and Louis XII again leading the French into Milan in October 1499, this time to assert an old claim upon the ducal throne, gain the betrayal and imprisonment of Lodovico (1500), who was to die a captive in France.

      Lodovico’s fall was the greatest misfortune which could have overwhelmed Leonardo. Under the duke his stipend had been ample and down to 1497 fairly regular, while the relations between the two men had on the whole been harmonious. After 1497, when difficulties beset the Sforzi, Leonardo’s salary was left unpaid and while relations were occasionally strained, yet one of Lodovico’s last acts before his flight from Milan was to present Leonardo with a vineyard outside the Porta Vercellina. Now the latter was reduced to the necessity, just as he was entering upon old age, of seeking another patron—who was to be tardy in appearance—or beginning his career again, a career which had been more fruitful hitherto in masterpieces and the admiration they had won than in tangible rewards, and expose himself to the danger which had hung over his whole life, that of the dispersal and scattering of his great gifts. Thus it was that as a consequence of the disorders in Milan and the loss of his patron that Leonardo in company with Luca Pacioli left that city in December 1499.

      By way of Mantua Leonardo paid a visit to Venice which lasted at least until March 1500, and where he may possibly have been a spectator at the anatomy course then being conducted by Alessandro Benedetti, then at the height of his fame. However, this remains merely surmise since it may be that systematic anatomy had no charms for Leonardo. While he may at this time have been familiar with Benedetti’s treatise on anatomy, nevertheless he mentions it only in a note-book which carries the date of September 1508.

      Florentine period

      From Venice Leonardo paid a brief visit to Friuli to give the Venetians advice on their fortifications against the Turkish threat and thereafter he returned to Florence. That he had managed to amass some money during his years in Milan is indicated by the fact that he placed 600 florins on deposit in Florence, from which at various times up to 1506 he withdrew 450. Anatomical studies were now neglected, whence it is possible to assume that he had had nothing to do with Benedetti and his circle in Venice. Certainly there seems to have been no enthusiasm or impetus for further anatomical research carried away with him from Venice. Rather he was to return to his artistic pursuits, and in the month of April 1501 he was working upon his Saint Anne with considerable eagerness, but as he did with so many of his pictures he soon thereafter put it aside half finished. All through this period, scientific enquiry alternated with artistic labor, though the latter is not, perhaps, pursued with the

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1